[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2012-November-29, 10:31, said:

I don't think "illegal auction" is a concept in the laws, and I don't think it is a very helpful idea. Let's stick to auctions which contain irregularities. Not every illegal call in an auctions that stands is being "treated as legal". Some illegal calls cannot be offered to the opposition for acceptance, yet they will routinely bid on after them, and are not deemed to be accepting them by doing so. This applies in particular to calls made with the illegal assistance of UI. Such calls stands as illegal calls that were part of the auction that occurred, and we look to adjust if they caused damage. Of course you have the formal appearance of a procedurally correct auction, but the call was still illegal.

By saying it is "an illegal auction", I don't think you mean any different from saying that the rectification for an auction that contains an inadmissible is to undo everything up to and including the irregularity. But we can't undo any part of an auction when we get into the play period, so there is a point at which this rectification can no longer apply. Law 11A admits the possibility that rectifications may be forfeited, so I don't think this is really such an intractible problem.

An auction is illegal when it contains a call that is an infraction (not just an irregularity, though all infractions are irregularities) of law. The laws may not explicitly articulate the concept, but it certainly exists.

The infraction in this case is not just of law 19, it's of a fundamental premise of the game — that you cannot double your own side's bid, or redouble your own side's double. If that were allowed we would be playing some completely different game, not contract bridge.

11A suggests that a pair may forfeit its right to rectification, by taking some action other than calling the director when an irregularity occurs. It does not admit of the possibility of such forfeit for other reasons.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-29, 13:06, said:

11A suggests that a pair may forfeit its right to rectification, by taking some action other than calling the director when an irregularity occurs. It does not admit of the possibility of such forfeit for other reasons.

I do not wish to see it forfeited for any other reason. I am addressing the point that some people are saying that there appears to be a rectification that cannot be forfeited even for the proper reason of failing to call the director following an irregularity. This is because they may be overlooking that this (cancelling an inadmissible double and all calls which followed it) is a rectification, and can, therefore, for proper cause, be forfeited like any other rectification. This rectification is unusual in that it can still apply even though the non-offending side did take action in bidding on. But once we get to the play period, it can no longer apply, and finally, at this point, it must be forfeited, and is being forfeited for proper cause.

Irregular auctions take place. They may contain other nonsense like calls out of turn and insufficient bids. Ah, but people say, but in those cases the irregularities have been "accepted".

But "acceptance" is not a necessary condition for calls to remain recorded in the auction. Most calls are not accepted, the regular ones in particular. There are also some other irregular calls -those which abuse UI - which remain in the auction despite lack of "acceptance". So acceptance is not a necessary condition for irregular calls to remain recorded in the auction.

At the end of the day, all we need from an auction for play to continue is for there to be a properly recognised final contract and a well-identified declarer, because nothing apart from that matters for the result. Whatever irregularities occured on the way, if we have that, play can continue. We can deal with the irregularities later by deciding whether to adjust for damage. The laws provide for this.

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2012-November-29, 13:25, said:

But once we get to the play period, it can no longer apply, and finally, at this point, it must be forfeited, and is being forfeited for proper cause.

Not sure I agree with "must be forfeited". The problem is that the laws do not allow (provide no means for) us to rectify, after the auction period, an auction containing an inadmissible double or redouble, save by adjusting the final score.

iviehoff, on 2012-November-29, 13:25, said:

At the end of the day, all we need from an auction for play to continue is for there to be a properly recognised final contract and a well-identified declarer, because nothing apart from that matters for the result. Whatever irregularities occured on the way, if we have that, play can continue. We can deal with the irregularities later by deciding whether to adjust for damage. The laws provide for this.

If all we need is a "properly recognized" (whatever that means) final contract and a well defined declarer, we don't need an auction at all. Just assign a contract and declarer by toss of a coin or something.

[pran]

I have a feeling that we cannot get much further so I suggest we close this thread now.

There are plenty of views here for us to consider and I thank everyone for valuable comments. I am also very grateful for a most diciplined discussion.

regards Sven

[blackshoe]

Works for me. If folks want to continue discussion on some aspect, please start a new thread.